CHHABBA LAL Vs. KALLU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated September 8, 1939, which set aside a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore dated November; 3, 1933, passed in a partition suit and sent the case back to the Subordinate Judge with directions to readmit it under its original number and to decide it in accordance with law.

(2.) THE question for decision is whether a reference to arbitration made in this suit, and an award made thereon, were valid as the Subordinate Judge held, or invalid as the High Court of Allahabad held in appeal.

(3.) ON September 1, 1933, an application was made to the Subordinate Judge by Kallu Lal, Sewak Lal and the plaintiff stating that the parties had appointed Shri Swami Ramanandji, who was the Guru of the parties, a referee for the decision of all the facts in dispute in the suit and also for the decision in respect of the costs of the suit and they asked that the Swami might be appointed a referee under Section 20 of the Indian Evidence Act. ON September 2, 1933, Sohan Lal appeared before the learned Subordinate Judge and verified this application and the learned Judge made the following note: This application was verified to-day by Sohan Lal, defendant, on being identified by Babu Munna Lal, Vakil, after hearing and understanding the same. In October 4, 1933, the learned Judge made an order that according to the application of the parties, Shri Swami Ramanandji was appointed a referee under Section 20 of the Indian Evidence Act for deciding this case and directed him, after deciding the case, to present himself in Court or send in writing his statement in respect thereof. ON October 7, 1933, the referee made his report dividing the family property into two parts allotting one part to the plaintiff and the other to the defendants. Objections to the report on behalf of the minors were lodged on October 17, 1933, the two principal objections being first that the guardian of the minors did not purport to act as a guandsan entering into the agreement for reference, and that as no previous sanction of the Court had been obtained, the agreement was not binding on the minors , and secondly that the alleged agreement in terms only constituted Swami Ramanandji a referee under Section 20 of the Indian Evidence Act and that as such he could only make statements and had no authority to make; a division of the property. Objections were also filed on behalf of the adult defendants alleging fraud against the Swami, but it is not necessary to consider these objections. ON November 3, 1933, the learned Subordinate Judge, having held that the reference to arbitration and the award were valid, passed a decree in the terms of the award.